Venezuelans Continue to Defy Washington Post

The Washington Post has never been fond of left-wing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. As serious questions mount about the state of Chavez’s health, the paper’s editorial page (1/5/13) found it a good time to take another swipe:

Venezuelans are bracing themselves for the death of the caudillo who has ruled them–and wrecked their once-prosperous country–over the past 13 years.

Economist Mark Weisbrot has a different take. In a “Room for Debate” discussion at the New York Times (1/4/13), he writes:

Since Hugo Chávez first took office, he and his party have won 13 of 14 national elections, mainly because they greatly improved the living standards of the majority of voters in Venezuela. Since 2004, after the economy recovered from the devastating opposition oil strike, poverty has been cut by half and extreme poverty by more than 70 percent.

Weisbrot goes on to show some of the other ways Venezuelans’ lives have improved in the Chavez years, adding:

These numbers are not really in dispute among economists or international statistical agencies. If you follow Venezuela and haven’t heard any of this, it’s because the news media is giving you the equivalent of a “tea party” view of the country.

So there’s maybe a chance that Venezuelans don’t think Chavez “wrecked” their country at all–unless you think reducing poverty and income inequality are bad things. To the Post, the fear seems to be that Venezuelans will remember this after Chavez’s passing:

Sadly, the economic pain caused by Mr. Chavez could, after his death, help create a political movement that will revere his memory.

Their point is that Chavez’s policies will force the next government to oversee harsh austerity policies to correct Chavez’s supposed mistakes. But Venezuelans might actually “revere” Chavez for the same reason they voted for him: His policies worked for the majority of the population. And that doesn’t sit well with the Washington Post.

Related

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

America’s endlessly power-serving media has never wasted an opportunity to take shots at Chavez, and they sure as hell aren’t going to wait for his obituary to make sure their version of history makes him a villain.

Then again, if their best attacks involve statements as incoherent as that latter one, there might be a chance for truth to prevail after all.

Why did Chavez denounce the American Convention on Human Rights and pull out of the Inter-American Court? Does FAIR realize Venezuelans will no longer be able to access this regional body if their rights are violated?

I’m also confused as to why Chavez isn’t scrutinized for propping up Bashar al-Assad by sending his regime oil and subverting international sanctions. Sixty thousand are dead from the political violence in Syria. al-Assad is behind all of it. The world community is against al-Assad but Chavez is helping him stay in power. Why is that tolerated on the Left?

FAIR is a great watch dog group. But I would think you would be upset and call Chavez out, especially how journalists are treated. I think there is too much cult of personality on the Left when it comes to this guy. Chavez is far from being a consistent supporter of human rights. It goes way beyond feeding the poor and lifting them out of poverty.

But you don’t understand! Chavez “wrecked the economy” for the rich. They’re the only ones who matter. The majority of Venezuelans don’t exist for the WP. Noam Chomsky’s quip about the US is just as true of other countries where the corporate media are concerned: “national interest” means corporate and political elites (essentially the same people), while “special interests” means the poor, racial minorities, women, working people, the elderly — the vast majority of the population, in short.

Nicolas Maduro, the (personally-appointed by Chavez) “vice president” of Venezuela, calls his amo “the commander president.” What great double talk! Is the guy a commander (implying military dictatorship) or is the guy a president (implying elected democracy)? Who knows? Even those in Venezuela’s upper government don’t seem to know the answer to that one. You gotta laugh.

Ctrenta
Do you count the right to food and shelter as basic human rights? What about the rights to health, or education, or a job? Did Chaves improve these rights for the Venezuelan people? By the way, you seem to have a lack of memory that our CIA tried unsuccessfully to overthrow Chavez and that we never apologized to the Venezuelan people, or to Chavez for this shameful, criminal act? Did Post ever write about this event, when hundreds of thousands of the Venezuelans took to the streets, and reversed our government’s shameful act? Even the military joined the people in the streets. When will the owners of Post wake up and see that the world is changing not withstanding the United States and its machinations? I most sincerely hope that Chavez’ successor will follow the steps of his predecessor.

MKUltra- You ever hear of the “Commander in Chief”? Maybe in ultimate terms confounding Commanders and Presidents is not a good thing, but your laughing at the situation strikes me as commanding hypocrisy. Long live the Bolivarian Revolution!

I’d think it also worth mentioning that the term “caudillo” is usually reserved for military dictators or strongmen and that unless there is evidence of the WP using the term to refer to dictators the US supports/supported, it’s further proof of the paper’s bias.

@ Chrigid I knew that. I was addressing a bigger problem at FAIR of propping Chavez up to be a great guy. He isn’t. FAIR and progressive activists ignore the harsh realities of his regime because he “distributes the wealth. Well, the mob takes care of its own too, so did the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries, Cuba, etc. But we don’t consider them benevolent individuals, right? Not when it comes to political suppression. I think the same applies to Chavez.

I’ll say it again: He is far from being a consistent supporter of human rights. It goes way beyond feeding the poor and lifting them out of poverty. That’s a very narrow definition what we’re basing Chavez on.

@Bozidar Kornic says “I most sincerely hope that Chavez’ successor will follow the steps of his predecessor.”

My prediction is when Chavez dies, Venezuela will slide into military rule, headed by a Chavista current or former general … and the Left will give Venezuela a pass because they defy U.S. foreign policy. For me, I think that’s hollow. Social change doesn’t come at the hands of military rule. To excuse Venezuela because they implement domestic policies we agree on, IMO, is not seeing the forest from the trees. It includes democracy and human rights.

(Cont.) It includes democracy, human rights and freedom of the press! That’s a no brainer. When the Committee to Protect Journalists has documented abuses of journalists in Venezuela, I think FAIR should go beyond a quibble with the Washington Post.

“The short-lived and unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government exposed the politicised and undemocratic nature of Venezuela’s private commercial media. At an international news level, the events of April 2002 demonstrated that foreign news coverage tends to reproduce the version of the dominant elite and over-simplify the causes and outcomes of complex historical events. In this case, most of the foreign news not only reproduced the local private media coverage, but also amplified the strength of the coup. Essentially, this media coup revealed the centrality of the commercial, privately owned media in bringing together some of the key players behind this political operation: businesses, right-wing politicians and some sectors of the military. The key component of the current social and political crisis in Venezuela is the bitter struggle between the government and the commercial media.”http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=013180178483702;res=IELLCC

Since the corporate-backed media was complicit in the attempt to overthrow Chavez, it is not at all surprising that he would be wary of their press “freedoms.”

Take another look at John G’s list of members on the Committee to Protect Journalists. Simply put, BigCorporate/Capital doesn’t like Chavez (and uses its media arm to vilify him at every opportunity) because his policies undermine their neo-liberal agenda. After all, Venezuela is a success story in nationalizing its oil production, and the greedy powers-that-be don’t like that one bit.

I don’t like Globovision and RCTV anymore than you do. That doesn’t mean they should not be accorded the same rights/press freedoms that apply to journalists that you and I may agree with (Amy Goodman, Robert Fisk and the like).

I think that’s a stretch to say CPJ’s work is slanted because of who funds them. Do you have evidence of funders influencing the work they do? I mean “real” evidence, not just what you “think” is evidence. Good luck.

I’m not convinced of Antonio Castillo’s conclusions. It seems his report is more about validating his own ideologies that it is about going after facts. Things are more nuanced that we make them out to be.

The author’s point is well taken, but so are the comments of ctrenta. So the question is: can a society be created that reduces poverty without embracing human rights abuse? Certain communist countries (China, Cuba) have improved life for the majority, but remained too authoritarian. Are there any countries that embrace both socialistic economic policies and maintain freedom, dignity and dissent? Yes. Most northern European countries and Japan. Democratic socialism seems to be the model that works. Japan seems to be a very interesting model. Civil society, strong middle class, strong safety net, few natural resources, no growth, but no deterioration either. Yes, they have a massive debt, but it doesn’t seem to matter. Emerging countries, however, start from a very difficult place. Can a Venezuela eventually become a Japan? Looks like Brazil is on its way.

Orangutan, you should switch your pen-name to Rousseau, or for being a sage to Aristotle. You are 100% correct. The base for elementary happiness stems from fulfilling the very basic human needs, as Abraham Masslow outlined in his now famous ‘hierachy of needs.’ We talk about the ‘pursuit of happiness,’ in our Declarations of Independence, and there can be no happiness if one is sick and not treated, hungry no food, homeless, denied job, education, and free speech. Chavez tried to improve the lives of the bottom, and he is succeeding. We need Chavez in the U.S.

Mr Chavez is a man who owes his left hand to Fidel for his armed support,and his right to oil revenue(remember that evil earth killing stuff).Oil money that allowed a better life for his people ,even if he did a hundred other things wrong.Strange isn’t it,how much mileage he got from the one capitalist thing he accomplished?Always the way.His one capitalist money tree pays for all his socialist largess.

The money from selling oil has nothing to do with the economic system. Anybody having money can buy oil whether it is from Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Venezuela. What is different in the case of Venezuela, is that the oil in the ground, or below the sea bottom, is declared not a private property of any oil corporation like EXXON, instead, it belongs to the Venezuelan people. The profits from the oil are used for the benefit of most of the citizens, rather than for the share holders of EXXON. In just society, the people come before the profits.

Chavez once quoted Gandhi to justify his humanistic reforms; “To deprive a man of his natural liberty and to deny to him the ordinary amenities of life is worse then starving the body; it is starvation of the soul, the dweller in the body.”
Mahatma Gandhi

Chagrid and Bozidar, I am mocking the idea on the left that oil is intrinsically evil.And you are wrong to believe that that is not the case.They cut no slack for who owns the oil(Capitalists,socialists etc).Oil pollutes and fouls the earth…period!Anyone using it for any purpose is there fore evil.Except Obama who is of course the lord and savior and above such things.

It is interesting to note that racism is not dead in the U.S.; some people just refuse to accept Obama. I feel sorry for those who are suffering emotional anguish that Obama won in spite of all the millions spent by the rich capitalist, and the misguided working class blinded by racist propaganda. The very people, who see Chavez as an evil person, are blind to see that our country is a promoter of pollution refusing to join the progressive countries that are pushing to tighten the laws regulating pollution, and global warming. I agree that the most efficient combustion engine is still only 14% efficient, and a significant source of pollution, but at the same time, coal burning by the electric plants too is on the equal scale polluting. When we talk about pollution, what about the nuclear energy pollution and the danger of radiation and the storing of highly radioactive plutonium that has a half life which is 24,100 years? The fact that plutonium is used for nuclear weapons is also a danger to the world peace. Who in this country is the greatest proponent of de-regulating all the current laws set by the EPA? The capitalists, the greed, and the profit motive which drives the evil system.

Chagrid what is this term you on the left always use(troll)?It is an oft used word that really means nothing.People who disagree with you?There are millions.The liberal left is everything I have said about them and far more.No need to troll for any information against them.They prove our points(those on the right)everyday, in everything they say and do.The outcome is also as we have predicted.

Crenta, first of all, the US and some of its closest allies does not make the “international community”. Second, Chavez operates under the most journalistic hostile environment. In Mexico and Honduras journalist routinely are found dead. Haven’t heard of Venezuelan journalists showing up dead. Furthermore, a majority of yhe Venezuelan media are privately own by oligarchic families who are hostile to Chavez and are likens to US politicians and US institutions.

Jova, do you read Spanish? The media is mostly government controlled in Venezuela. Either you toe the party line or you’ll be fined and go to jail. It’s as simple as that. And yes, there have been journalist killed in Venezuela -which by “coincidence” -after government investigation-have always been drug related… Here is an article in CPJ (Worldwide Comittee to Protect Journalist) in regards to the hostile environment to journalist, and not to Chavez, as you claim.

[…] that has experienced remarkable growth over his time in office. The Post, clearly missing its old left-wing Latin American target, sneers that "replacing the deceased Hugo Chavez as the hemisphere's preeminent anti-U.S. […]

[…] that has experienced remarkable growth over his time in office. The Post, clearly missing its old left-wing Latin American target, sneers that “replacing the deceased Hugo Chavez as the hemisphere’s preeminent […]